Below is my column in USA Today on politics over Roe and the Supreme Court vacancy. The new vacancy and the the earlier pro-life pledge of President Donald Trump is something of a bill come due for Republicans. It is a bill that some Republicans privately do not want to pay.
Here is the column:
“I’m like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn’t know what to do if I caught one.” That famous line from the Joker in “The Dark Knight” could well be delivered by dozens of Republican senators this month. For decades, Republican politicians have run on pro-life platforms and promises to reverse Roe v. Wade with a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court. That mantra was picked up most recently by President Donald Trump, who pledged to supporters that overturning Roe v. Wade “will happen, automatically” because he would appoint only pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.
The problem for the Republican Party is that Trump could actually succeed with the nominee he announces Monday to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Many Republicans say privately it is the last thing they want to happen, given the potential for backlash in House and Senate elections that could turn on thin margins. Polls put public support for Roe v. Wade as high as 70 percent, with a majority opposing a nominee who wants to reverse it.
That includes many of those suburban moms critical to the Republican majority. Roe is approaching 50 years, but it is still driving our political debate. It is one thing to chase a court and another thing to catch one.
Trump didn’t get the memo on abortion
The biggest concern in Washington is that Trump did not get the memo about sounding pro-life without actually being pro-life. One of the most fascinating aspects of the Trump administration is the remarkably high number of promises that Trump has actually kept. Voters are used to presidents discarding promises, or being unable to keep them, after they assume office.
Given his reputation for hyperbole and distortion, few really expected Trump to make good on many of his promises. Yet he has assembled an impressive record on deliverables, from tax cuts to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to dismantling Obamacare; from cracking down on illegal immigration and trade he calls unfair, to moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, to rolling back environmental and other regulations.
If Trump were to deliver on reversing Roe, he would have accomplished something that five Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagan, could not achieve for decades. In other words, Trump might just mean it, and that is precisely the problem for many senators.
More: Kennedy’s retirement threatens abortion rights even if Roe survives
Who should Trump nominate to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court?
Kennedy retirement plunges court into politics. Here’s how to turn down the heat.
Republican senators such as Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski support abortion rights, and Collins has said that a nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade would “not be acceptable.” The question is whether such members are as serious in guaranteeing the continuation of Roe as Trump has been in pursuing its end.
For his part, Trump has announced that he “probably won’t” ask any nominee where he or she stand on the case. This would allow all sides to have plausible deniability, though virtually everyone on Trump’s list is believed to oppose the reasoning of Roe v. Wade. As a result, the only way for Collins to be sure about Roe v. Wade is to demand an express assurance that the decision will be preserved by the nominee. What she is likely to receive is the same meaningless mantra from nominees that they respect precedent and will keep an open mind.
Since 1973, Roe has been the perpetual motion machine of American politics. It is likely to remain so for the next 50 years — regardless of the nominee. Even if Trump’s nominee were to vote to overturn Roe, the new majority may find Chief Justice John Roberts a hard sell for a frontal attack on Roe as opposed to narrowing decisions along its edges.
Roberts is the ultimate institutionalist and might get sticker shock from the political price of directly overturning the decision. (Roberts broke from the conservative wing to save Obamacare in 2012 rather than disrupt heath care coverage across the nation.)
Political momentum for abortion rights
However, even if Roe were overturned, the political controversy would only shift to the states, where each state would vote on the availability of abortions. Most states would likely protect the right.
Indeed, in 2013 Ruth Bader Ginsburg surprised an audience at the University of Chicago by saying that Roe v. Wade may have been a mistake in such a sweeping form. She said the politics of the decision were not good for the pro-choice cause: “That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly. … My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change.”
That momentum would likely be regained by any reversal of Roe, given the overwhelming majority that supports the right. Indeed, Ginsburg’s comment might prove prophetic if Roe is kept barely alive by the court. On a political level, it might be better for pro-choice advocates to see the opinion overturned entirely rather than left effectively dead by a thousand paper cuts.
If Roe lives, even in a greatly reduced form, the right will continue to reside in the Supreme Court. If it is overturned, momentum will likely approach madness as an estimated 70 percent of the country move to recreate the right in their states.
That is the car that Republicans fear to catch.
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, where he teaches constitutional and tort law. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
If Roe is overturned abortions will already be illegal in nearly half of the country where the states already have laws prohibiting it. So we have a bunch of mostly old white men who have no experience in the medical field deciding women’s health issues; not a pretty sight.
The so-called pro-lifers won’t be stopping abortions, they will only be making them illegal for those who cann’t afford to go to Ireland or some other country where women’s reproductive health is considered a private matter. Abortions will continue as they were before Roe v Wade was passed. Coat hangar procedures may return; the use of herbal remedies will increase; and what will happen to the pharmaceutical remedies; will they go underground? Women will die but that’s ok.
So we have a bunch of mostly old white men who have no experience in the medical field deciding women’s health issues; not a pretty sight.
Betty, anyone’s franchise to participate in public discussions is not contingent on ascribed features of the person other than their age. If anyone here wins the Darwin Award from The Funny Times it will be you; you can still participate in public discussions and vote.
The “state of the art” of the progressive abortion debate: “anything an old white man is for proves it’s wrong.” (Progressive version of “inclusiveness” for old white men.)
Newsbreak for pathetically stupid progressives: everything’s better for the rich, including abortion access.
( if Roe is overturned), “we have a bunch of mostly old white men who have no experience in the medical field deciding womens’ health issues; not a pretty site”.
Bettykath, by your standards, a bunch of nine old men ( no women justices) with “no medical experience” had no business deciding Roe v. Wade.
We now have 3 liberal women SC justices.
Leaving that aside, how long have you been voicing your objections to the nine ” mostly older white men” who decided Roe v. Wade?
Progressive meme: “The government must purchase for the poor anything and everything that is easier and more accessible to the very wealthy.”
Newsbreak for not too bright progressives: everything is easier and more accessible to the poor, including abortion.
I wonder about the validity of the polls that reflect 70% approval for Roe v. Wade. As with most things, the devil is in the details. If the poll question was posed as “Do you support abortion rights?”, a 70% figure is understandable. However, if the question were posed as “Do you believe the people should decide the abortion issue through their elected representatives rather than having judges make the decision?”, I believe a majority would answer “yes”. Many people believe that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would become illegal. Not so. Each state legislature would be called upon to pass laws restricting/eliminating abortion. My guess is that abortion would remain legal, albeit restricted, in most states and that very few women would be denied abortions.
Those are nonsense polls. Most people don’t follow public affairs, much less have informed opinions about particular bits of case law. When you ask questions like, ‘should abortion be permissible when [name the circumstance]’, you discover our current regime in abortion law is congruent with the views of less than 5% of the public and that about 70% of the public favors prohibition of abortion in circumstances which encompass about 95% of the abortions performed in this country.
T.SpasticsD. is just Making Stuff Up again.
Yep.
DB Benson,…
TeachingSpastics/ DDS etc. probably has the best record of anyone here for factual accuracy.
You, on the other hand, are careless in that area.
Tom Nash – David Benson is beyond careless, he is criminally negligent.
Paul C. Schulte,…
And, allegedly, a welcher when it comes to providing citations owed to you.😆😕
Tom, I don’t owe Paul C Schulte a d****d thing. It is just that his mind is going.
D.B.Benson…,
I did say “allegedly”, since I haven’t worked back through the threads to see if there is enough evidence to support the “charge” against you.
In the meantime, I’ll let your attorney and Paul’s attorney fight it out.
😄
David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after six weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – My mind is in perfect shape and tomorrow that six is going to change to a seven. Tempus fugits. Seven whole weeks since the first time you stiffed me on a citation. And yet you believe in Nate Silver, that is like believing in the Tooth Fairy.
“– My mind is in perfect shape…” Paul, about himself
We’ll just let that stand alone Paul. Well, surrounded by all of your nonsensical comments.
anonymous – some of my nonsense statements are just so you will fu*/ with yourself. 😉
Paul C. Schulte,…
I’ve sometimes wondered if the “anonymous” trolls get together, have group meetings.
Their little clubhouse would likely be in a treehouse, or in a shed, with secret passwords and handshakes and all sorts of cool neato things like that.
That kind of setting would be ideal for their secret meetings, if they actually do get together.
I didn’t see much in the way of outright troll activity here a few years ago, when I first found this site.
That troll activity is as common as dirt on other sites….this is the only site/forum that I post on/ participate in.
I stumbled on it in researching a paricular lawsuit involving a specific issue; google searches led me to a relevant article here, written by Darren, I think.
Visiting those other sites with comment forums was a real eye-opener for me re “the troll world”, but I didn’t see that, back then, on JT’s site.
I know you’ve been here longer than me; in your experience, is the troll presence here something that’s ebbed and flowed at times, steadily increased, relatively recent, etc.?
Just curious what changes, if any, you’ve noticed over your time span here.
Tom Nash – when I first got on here, there were two guys who targeted me. They did not go after anyone else, just me. They lasted for about 6 months and then faded. They went over to Pansies for Pluto (which I think has since died or shrunk). Over time I have been the target de jour for many so it has become part of the territory. Now it doesn’t even raise my blood pressure. 😉
There was a time when the insults were so bad that I would send them to JT to be deleted. Now, I just pass them by or make fun of them. So, yes things were worse and they have gotten better, but they could get better yet. 😉
Thanks, Paul…
– Outside of specific targeting of an individual, I was wondering about the more prolific, “full- time” trolls.
I.E., virtually every comment by any person is apt to bring a troll reply.
So basically, a situation it’s nearly automatic that a troll’s bitchiness will flood the comments section responding with serial insults aimed at the last 5-10-15 people who posted, without any particular individual targeted.
I had that particular trolling “style” in mind with respect to the history of it here.
Tom Nash – Marky Mark Mark is a special case and I think we are emotional solace for him. Every day, five days a week he gets beaten up by the government. Then he can come here and take out his pain on us. He really needs a hobby where he can hit things to take out his aggression rather than be here. However, I do not know where he lives so I cannot send him a gym membership.
There are a couple of old hands who have changed their names because they wore them out. Still, they pick who they attack. There is a group of four or five who stick together. The question is always: do you want to engage them?
Paul C. Schulte,…
As far as engaging them, generally not.
With some exceptions.
There are regular readers of columns and comments, those who follow sporadically, and some who are completely new to reading, and/or commenting here.
Those in the later category ard not as likely to be familiar with the background/context of certain exchanges.
There’s also a record of the past columns and comments that goes back for years.
When there’s a noticable and questionable series of comments that goes back a few hours or a few days, that ( pointing to the history/ context) can be one of the exceptions.
Another exception might be when I apologize 😟for offending someone by overusing emoticons, and promise to reform☺😏😃😀😂
Tom Nash – I just never take it personally anymore.
Paul C. Schulte,…
I don’t know if you ever watched “A Shot in the Dark” with Peter Sellers, Herbert Lom, Elke Summers, and George Sanders.
Great comedy….it’s my favorite of the Clouseau series.
Long-suffering Inspector Dreyfus is chewing out Clouseau for some screwup.
Clouseau asks “There is something personal in this?”
Dreyfus says “Deeply personal. I hate you…every bit of you…now GET OUT!”
Clousesu: You want me to leave?”
Tom Nash – I think A Shot in the Dark is the best of the movies. 😉 And yes, it was personal. 🙂
Tom Nash, TSpasticD is like propaganda anywhere; Made Up Stuff sprinkled with a dusting of truth.
D.B. Benson,…
Making that accusation does not make your case.
If you want to support your comment, challenge TD to Spastics/ DSS when he'”making things up”.
You have repeatedly made that “he’s making things up” comment as a reply to certain comments.
I’ve almost NEVER seen you provide support for your “making things up” accusation.
You seem to think that merely making that declaration is suffient.
Back it up, TStD.
Patently false. But don’t let that stop you; it never has before.
this is to “I often like to just make sh*t up for the hell of it” spastic
Vince Jankowski, according to 538 57% approve of abortion, as I stated previously.
David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after six weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you fail to cite a source. I need to see the raw data on any poll.
Two things:
1. What the ___ is 538? Is that the poll size? The name of the organization conducting the poll? Somebody’s alias?
2. What was the question asked of the poll’s respondents? Did 57% approve of abortion in some circumstances? In all circumstances? Before viability? In the 1st trimester? Up until birth? I can’t believe the 57% number holds constant for all of those circumstances.
3. Approving of abortion is not the same thing as approving of Roe v. Wade.
Ok. So, that’s 3 things.
As everyone should know, 538 is Nate Smith’s polling organization. Where have you been?
Nate Silver, actually.
hollywood, yes, Nate Silver. Thank you.
David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after six weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – 538 is the organization that gave Trump a 15% chance of winning on election day 2016. Nate Silver rocks!!!
Paul C. Schulte,…
Huffing and Puffing Post screwed up even worse; on the eve of the election, they gave Trump 2% chance of winning.
I think maybe that Huffington Post incorporates wishful thinking into some of their forecasts, and their reporting as well.
I think HuffPuff holds the record for being the furthest off the mark on 2016 election odds.
I would have needed 5-to-1 odds to bet on a Trump win, thinking his odds of winning were about 20%.
I was way off, but still 10× better than HuffPuff.
Ok, let me rephrase the question: Who the ___ is Nate Smith? I have heard of Adam Smith. I also have heard of Stan Smith, Ian Smith, Steve Smith, and a bunch of other people with that surname. I have also known goldsmiths, but have never met a blacksmith. But, no, never a Nathan Smith.
To answer your question of where have I been, I certainly haven’t been following Nate Smith, his career, or his polling agency.
Vince Jankowski, the correct name is Nate Silver. He is well known as one of the very best pollesters. Follow 538 if you are interested in polls.
Thanks for the correction. I know a Nate Silver, probably not the same guy though.
David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seven weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Nate Silver had Trump at 15% on the morning of the election. He is clearly a pollster we all should follow.
I never planned on having an abortion and my wife does not either. So why would I care?
The best part about the abortion issue is that it offers much fodder for politicians to predominate their time and that they are less likely to involve themselves in legislation that damages our country or takes advantage of the citizenry.
I will state that these people have a legitimate moral grievance on the abortion issue. https://jonathanturley.org/2015/10/10/ethical-certainties-why-pro-life-supporters-cannot-morally-abandon-their-cause/
But unless a particular woman wants/needs to have an abortion presently or in the future, what real difference does it make in the life of most people? Nothing of any real consequence.
Still, if someone has a need to be perpetually outraged and fearful over a chosen topic I suppose the abortion issue is divisive enough to meet their wants.
I never planned on having an abortion and my wife does not either. So why would I care?
I never planned on owning a slave and my wife does not either. Ergo….
The implication of your post is that slavery was bad. Slavery was free market cheap labor. If people did not like slavery, they could avail themselves of their free market tools, which were free speech, boycotts and divestiture, and put companies employing slave labor out of business.
War was unnecessary.
If you don’t buy it, they will go bankrupt.
Abortion is murder of a human being in its earliest stage.
Euthanasia is murder of a human being in its latest stage.
I’d like to legalize murder of a bad neighbor in its current stage.
If we can vote for one form of murder, we can vote for another.
All this bull—- and one law:
Thou Shalt Not Kill.
Your argument would make some sense if a zygote was not a human being, but it is, so your point is invalid.
Your legal argument here reminds me of your prediction Re. the legal case a couple years ago when a Rohnert Park police man illegally waved his gun at a guy tying down his boat. You wrongly predicted the court would toss the civil case. The police man lost his 2 bids for the court to toss the case, and a few days later the police man settled out of court, finally admitting he was a criminal who needed to pay his debt to the civilian (directly the opposite of Rohnert Park’s “investigation.”
No one is surprised you, a retired police man, favored the cop’s illegal violation of the Constitution.
The problem is, the notion that a zygote is a human being, and a “person,” is by no means agreed upon. You may think so. The Pope may think so. But millions of people don’t think so.
Well, you can turn the matter over to the state legislatures and have them work on it, which is how matters were handled prior to 1973. And, no, William O. Douglas and William Brennan didn’t give a damn what the hoi palloi agreed upon or not. They only cared what People Like Us agreed upon.
Thanks for admitting (by your omission) that you agree that you know of no difference between a zygote’s humanity and your own humanity. The only other reason for your lack of reply is to keep it secret, and that makes no sense at all.
I’m not asking for anyone to agree with anyone. If I’m right, and I am, then Roe has killed 60M unborn innocent human beings.
Persons who support Roe must claim that a zygote is not human. To such persons, I demand they state their case: list everything that differentiates their own “humanity” from a zygote’s (claimed) humanity.
The fact that such list is not forthcoming confirms that a zygote is human, hence Roe caused the death of over 60M unborn humans.
You are fully(?) developed and not a human being. Humanity is defined by more than a viable zygote.
Place marker.
Readers here might care to contemplate the Republic of Ireland. A nominally Catholic country, they recently voted to change the constitution to allow induced abortions. Why?
D.B. Benson,…
A lot of Catholics are “pro choice”……that is not church dogma, but strict adherence to church dogma probably went out the window c. 50 years ago.
It’s visible in the U.S. in the pro choice positions of John Kerry, the late Sen. Kennedy, and other Catholic politicians.
I think the Supreme Court had 5 Catholic justices before Sacalia died….not sure of Gorsuch’s religion.
I didn’t see evidence of a pro life tilt with a Catholic majority Supreme Court.
Tom Nash, that is not an answer to the stated question.
DB Benson….Yes, it was an answer to your question.
I can’t help it if you failed to understand the answer.
Scalia was the only member of the Court who gave secure evidence of being an adherent of the Church in any way more elaborate than having a valid baptism and confirmation. Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are not visibly at odds with the Church. Kennedy and Sotomayor were at odds if not self-excommunicated.
Neil Gorsuch attended Catholic schools at a time when they were institutionally healthier than they are today (because the collapse of vocational recruitment had deprived the religious orders of young adult members but not yet members from every working-aged cohort), but at a time when everyday Catholic practice and the ‘sacred canopy’ of Catholic thinking was experiencing severe entropy. His mother was divorced and re-married. By some accounts, his father David R. Gorsuch, had a 2d wife as well. (His father died in 2001; there’s a Colorado resort impresario named S. David Gorsuch almost precisely the same age as his father with whom you might confuse his father). News reports put him at an Episcopal Church in Fairfax County, Va. His tertiary schooling and family life look a great deal like Samuel Alito’s (i.e., not Catholic in any obvious way).
Teaching: thank you, very interesting.
Clearly the US needs to invade Eire or at least apply draconian economic sanctions, to stamp out this immoral new situation. While we’re at it, we could invade Canada, Mexico, and all the Caribbean islands for the same purpose. That’s the only way to prevent all abortions. Oh, and I forgot to add – put all young women under police custody, or at least the custody of wise old men.
SMALL STATES HAVE TOO MUCH POWER
ENABLING PRO GUN AND ANTI ABORTION FORCES
Every state gets 2 senators regardless of population. What’s more, the Electoral College System empowers smaller states. Therefore certain issues are driven by folks in smaller towns. Abortion is certainly one of those. Criminalizing abortion probably seems more urgent to Christian conservatives in smaller towns.
Therefore many senators, and governors as well, represent small town Christians. For that reason abortion has remained a contentious issue. The 30 smallest states have 60 senators.
But 75% of America lives in the 20 biggest states. 66% in the 15 biggest states. And 37% percent in just the 5 biggest states.
In other words, 25% of America has 60 U.S. Senate seats. That explains the support for criminalizing abortion. Whites in smaller towns wield disproportionate power. They have the senators to keep abortion in the spotlight. Senators that vote for pro-life judges. But they don’t represent the American majority.
Um … all one needs to remember is that majority = mob rule. Checks and balances are surely needed. I’d like to see your statics that the majority of Americans are for abortion. No CNN OR MSNBC polls please.
Ron, according to 538 57% favor abortion rights.
One thing that seems to get lost in the noise, is the distinction between abortions and abortion rights. My personal belief is that having an abortion is a sad decision. But forbidding that decision is worse.
A lot of these issues….e.g., allocation of the number of Senators and Representatives per state…were hashed out c.230 years ago.
You could pass a Constitution Amendment, and/ or complain to the Founding Fathers who made these decisions.
( There’s probably about an equal chance on the odds of being able to do either one).😉
Peter Hill–What you are describing is what keeps US free. Or used to anyway. I get the impression that you do not know the difference between a democracy & a republic. In a democracy the 20 or 15 biggest states could control the rest of the USA. Would that be a good idea?
Small states have too much power?
Ever look up the difference between a democracy & republic as forms of government? The US Founders knew what they were doing. Changing what they gave us, a republic, to a majority rule democracy would remove Constitutional protection from a vast number of us.
I do think you make some assumptions that are not all that accurate. Some seem a bit bigoted & racist. You make assumptions about whites & Christians that seem to lead to the conclusion that they are in more control than they really are.
Yes.30 states have 60 Senators. How many Representatives do they have? Didja notice how that kinda balances out…
The Electoral College was a stroke of genius! Do some unbiased research. You seem very nervous that the US population wants to keep the Second Amendment & may wake up to realize that babies in the womb have the same rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness as their fellow citizens.
What’s wrong with that?
SamFox
Peter Hill–What you are describing is what keeps US free.
Rubbish. It’s an institutional convention. The electoral college is largely inconsequential and the U.S. Senate as currently structured we are better off without. However, if you want to alter matters, you have to do so according to law.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS ARCHAIC
California has more people than the 20 smallest states combined. Yet those 20 states have more Electoral Votes than California and New York combined. 18% of America lives in California and New York (the 1st and 4th largest states). Only 10% of America lives in the 20 smallest states.
Peter Hill: keep howlin’ at the moon. Pray to your tooth fairy. It’s more effective than moaning about the Electoral College.
Mob (majority) rule is, was and always shall be the antithesis of a Constitutional Republic.
SMALL STATES HAVE TOO MUCH POWER
ENABLING PRO GUN AND ANTI ABORTION FORCES
Small states like Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, and Delaware?
Rhode Island and Delaware are essentially counties that function as states. Vermont and New Hampshire are not much more than that.
Rhode Island and Delaware are essentially counties that function as states. Vermont and New Hampshire are not much more than that.
That’s a nonsense statement, Peter. Both state boundaries and county boundaries are historical and conventional. State boundaries do not shift and county boundaries seldom do. What distinguishes counties and states is (1) autonomy, (2) function, and (3) population ranges. There are over 3,200 counties in the United States, but fewer than 200 which are more populous than even the least populous state. And, of course, populous counties consist of dense urban settlements and affiliated commuter belts. States can have any mix of settlement types, as can be seen in examining the list of four you provide. As for autonomy and function, no matter how populous, Suffolk County, NY doesn’t have it’s own law codes or it’s own prison system or it’s own college and university system. Vermont does.
So ‘what’? The states I described have county size populations and areas.
No, they do not. The average county in this country has a population of about 100,000 and has a land area of just north of 1,110 sq miles The states in question range from 600,000 to 1.2 million and areas which range from 1,200 to 9,650 sq miles. Of over 3,100 counties, about 500 are larger in land area than Rhode Island, about 280 larger than Delaware, and 26 larger than Vermont and New Hampshire (and every one such county is in Alaska or out in the western desert zones).
Yeah, they’re smaller in population than many counties. And their areas are really not much bigger. I’m in the West, of course. There are plenty counties out here with larger areas than those 4 states.
I can explain something to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.
“SMALL STATES HAVE TOO MUCH POWER”
That was a feature, not a bug. The Senate was instituted with two Senators to each state, to induce smaller and less populace states to ratify the proposed Constitution. Nowadays, without it a smaller and more rural state (Idaho, say) would have zero influence at a national level.
Instead, smaller rural states has disproportionate influence. Therefore the largest states are marginalized.
Peter Shill, these are your least populous states, their manifest preference in elections to the U.S. Senate since 1992, and the share of their population which nestles in dense settlements of 50,000 or more.
Maine, mixed, < 10%
West Virginia, mixed, ~10%
Vermont, Democratic, ~15%
New Hampshire, mixed, ~15%
South Dakota, mixed, ~20%
Wyoming, Republican, 22%
Montana, mixed, ~25%
Alaska, Republican, 32%
North Dakota, Democratic, ~35%
Idaho, Republican, 35%
New Mexico, mixed, 40%
Nebraska, mixed, 45%
Delaware, Democratic, 58%
Hawaii, Democratic, 60%
Utah, Republican, 70%
Rhode Island, Democratic, 72%
Nevada, mixed, 80%
No clue why you fancy there's much of a partisan advantage incorporated into this line up. You have five Democratic states, four Republican, and eight mixed. You are more likely in less populous states to have dispersed populations, but that's not a universal feature of states with small populations. While we're at it, exurban, small town, and rural populations comprise a majority of the whole in Ohio and North Carolina. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia are a 50-50 split.
Expand that list to the 30 smallest and see what you get.
IOW, you have no response.
Since 1980, the Republicans have controlled the House for 19 years and change. They’ve controlled the Senate for 16 years. The malapportionment of the Senate is really not the source of the problems you’ve been having in electoral contests.
IIRC more CA counties voted for Trump than “Crooked Hillary.” Just sayin…
Yeah, counties in the sticks. So what?
The point is the common hypocrisy of leftist progressives, one of which is my cousin. Shortly after Trump one, she’s one of the above hypocrites who posted the blue/red map of the Electoral College, the map in which leftists labeled all red states as “Dumbf__kistan.”
Two more clicks on her own pathetic map confirmed her county (in her blue state) was a member of “Dumbf__kistan.”
Modern progressives, as a group, are pathetically stupid. Your alleged civics lesson is another great example.
U.S. Civics is not your strong suit, is it? Representation in the Senate was always intended for the individual states to have an equal voice regardless of population. As Jay S. so aptly put it, it is a feature of our bicameral system, not a bug.
Again, the 30 smallest states have only 25% of the population but 60 U.S. Senators. That’s rule by the minority. We wouldn’t consider that acceptable in any other context.
I don’t consider it acceptable that social policy is dictated by committees of Ivy League lawyers meeting in secret, but you have a collection of Democratic numbskulls arguing for it on this thread.
I’m very leery of any proposal to mess with the delicate and fragile electoral system that was gifted to us by providence. A cursory historical review of American politics teaches us that the current political climate will change; not only the names of the actors, but the very parties themselves will in the future alter their substance (and in some cases their names) to the point where they would be unrecognizable to us. For just one example, the current manifestation of what used to be known as the Republican Party would be entirely alien to the likes of true conservatives such as Reagan, Buckley or Eisenhower. While the electoral system currently provides an advantage to the gullible rubes, such will not always be the case. History again teaches us that the pendulum swings, the piper must be paid, and the bell tolls. The current system does have certain counter-majoritarian and leavening effects–which is most definitely a feature. While I abhor the intentional ignorance, intolerance and spiteful hate of the current cabal in charge of the Executive and Legislative branches, I also don’t want California, New York, Florida and Texas voters to call the tune for the entire country.
Marky Mark Mark – you really do not have your finger on the pulse of the political class, do you? Both Trump and Clinton will be running again in 2020. The problem is the Democrats do not have another viable candidate.
Hollywood: “How could the embroyos sue to establish their rights?”
Your dog has rights. Did it sue to establish its rights?
Hollywood: “It’s hard to get a grasp on an embryo’s rights.”
Let me help you out. Everyone has heard the incredible story of a one-pound premature baby surviving. (No one would even know you were pregnant, any more than anyone would know if you’re constipated for a week, aside from a bitchy disposition.) A one-pound premature baby is not an embryo but a human being, entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The premature baby was never part of the mother’s body, any more than the father’s sperm was part of her body. In fact, the mother was merely a life-support system for the premature baby from the moment of conception, no differently than the incubator was life support after birth.
If you really believe this premature baby had no rights 10 minutes before birth, then you also must believe it has no rights after birth.
It’s conceivable that technology will eventually produce an incubator with sophisticated life support to bring an embryo, from the moment of conception, to a full-term baby, conception either natural or in a test tube. In other words, a woman would have the choice of foregoing pregnancy and birth by giving up her embryo to an incubator and eventual adoption. In this way, a woman would have equal freedom with a man, her unwanted pregnancy translating into the loss of a single egg to the loss of a man’s sperm, no more skin off her butt than a man’s.
It’s not much of a leap to argue that a mother is merely an incubator. And if an embryo in an incubator has rights, then the fetus should also have rights inside its mother.
If such technology existed today, would you give up the denial and finally admit that an unborn baby really does have rights? Or is abortion a femdom issue, something you’ll cling to until females dominate not just men and globalists but the entire world?
You need to learn basic developmental biology. After 8 weeks the term for the developing organism is fetus for human beings.
A better understanding of the difficulties of adoption would also help.
DDB, semantics. A fertilized egg is a human being. Not fully developed, we know, but still a human in the very 1st stage of life. If that were not true, the egg would not grow into a more developed HUMAN baby as time passed.
What is it if not life that causes the fertilized egg to start cell division? All humans are composed of cells. The new child is only at the start of the life process. It’s the same life from conception to grave that causes one’s heart to beat & allows us to breath even while asleep. It is life that causes a new child to develop.
Hiding behind terminology doesn’t change anything. The fertilized egg is a human, no matter the technical wording.
SamFox
SamFox, you make what philosophers call category errors. The zygote only has some chance of the potential to develop into a human being. Many fail to do so; learn some developmental biology before you pontificate.
The fact that, when pressed, you fail to list any difference between your humanity and that of a zygote, confirms the latter is a human being. Roe has resulted in over 60M unborn American innocent deaths.
At a time when the SCOTUS says two men can be husband and wife, they’re going to tell women that they can’t have the most fundamental control of their own bodies and their own destinies? Yes, I think that would make a lot of women very angry. It would overturn 50 years of precedent and turn women into court-sanctioned second class citizens. I have no doubt that the political backlash will be intense. Which would be a shame, because many women voted Republican, some for the first time, because they wanted lower taxes and more job creation, and will feel that the Republicans burned them.
“At a time when the SCOTUS says two men can be husband and wife” That could be overturned as well.
Husband is masculine.
Wife is feminine.
Two men will never constitute husband and wife.
This proposal is as inane and illegitimate as “Affirmative Action Privilege:” both are irrational, bizarre, false and illegal.
Marriage and matrimony, from Mary Mother of God, Mater Dei or mater, Latin mother, are derived from and represent
motherhood.
Homosexuals can never engender motherhood and can, therefore, never be married.
If they choose to publicize their perversion and deviancy, they may engage in a legal contract.
The whole scam is as fraudulent as solar panels which are effective as long as they are compulsory and subsidized by the
taxpayers.
Compounds that can never be viable or physically mix are held together by artificial emulsifiers or government dictatorship.
They are not results of freedom.
The inmates have taken over the asylum, which security should now recover with extreme prejudice and a strong sense of
urgency.
Actually, they are not “pro-life” but rather “pro-foetus”. For they oppose all those things which support proper child development, including such basics as making certain that kids don’t go hungry.
Um .. Personal Responsibility ??? When did it become the governments job to make sure your children have food? Oh, I forgot, when the Socialist gained power.
Ron, learn some history. If you don’t live on a farm you can’t grow your own food. Employment depends upon the vagaries of the economy.
No, it doesn’t. ‘The economy’ is an aggregate term for all ongoing transactions. ‘The economy’ is not an active agent. Public officials can exacerbate economic problems, but your employment does not ‘depend’ on the actions of public officials, because the effect of their decisions on specific persons is probabalistic, not deterministic.
David, we live in a country where our ‘poor people’ are fat and where grocery expenditure accounts for about 6% of personal income. Even so, grocery purchases are subsidized in various ways. Children go hungry because they’re neglected, and they’re neglected because their mothers are drug addicts.
Roe vs. Persuade
Very cute, Darren. There may be a future for you in the blog biz.
SCOTUS need not necessarily reverse Roe. If they successfully chip away enough at the edges, the result is the same. States that want to can regulate it away. Those who insist on an abortion can get them in the many States that still allow it.
Soros can pay round trip transportation fees to those needing transport from an illegal state to a legal state for their abortion.
The right thing is to outlaw abortion except to save the mother’s life. (Interestingly, ancient Rome ruled back and forth, sometimes allowing and sometimes outlawing abortion, per Durant’s “Caesar and Christ” text books.)
“July 8, 2018 at 2:10 AM
SCOTUS need not necessarily reverse Roe. If they successfully chip away enough at the edges, the result is the same. States that want to can regulate it away. Those who insist on an abortion can get them in the many States that still allow it.”
Read this over. Do you see how absurd this is? So you can get an abortion in one state but not another? So how many “lives” will this save? So how much will these arrangements cost? This is hypocritical nonsense. I thought the GOP was conservative, wanting to conserve assets not waste them.
Hollywood, abortion wastes more assets than one could imagine. Those are growing in the womb children that the fascist Dimm left & RINO-CINOs want women to have the right to kill. New human beings are what is inside the Mother. It’s not a part of her body like kidneys or arms. They are developing in the womb children.
Different names for different stages of growth & development are still terms for ‘growing child’.
The left snarls about separating children & parents at the border, but have no problem with growing babies being ripped or sucked to separate the developing child from a woman’s womb.
Why don’t newly formed & growing human children have the right to LIFE, liberty & the pursuit of happiness?
Those human ‘assets’ ARE worth protecting. And conserving.
SamFox
I’d rather abortion be outlawed except to save the mom’s life. Does that suit you better?
The next step in a forced-birth regime would be border checks between the states and at international ports of entry. All young women required to take pregnancy tests. All young women exiting a state had better be equally pregnant or holding a baby when they return – or off to jail. A woman, after all, must be nothing but an incubator, and her plans and aspirations and preferences don’t count at all. Roe v Wade, by the way, said that her plans and aspirations predominated during the first third of pregnancy, the fetus’s during the last third, and the middle third TBD.
Roe v Wade, by the way, said that her plans and aspirations predominated during the first third of pregnancy, the fetus’s during the last third, and the middle third TBD.
That is the risk you take when you enable the government to infringe on rights that were always unalienable. What one court can do in your favor, another court can take away. And yes, that means a court can swing completely the the other way and infringe other natural rights. That of course is not acceptable either, but the time to find natural rights worth defending is not only when it’s in your favor to do so.
Joseph Jones, “The right thing …” I cannot agree. The right thing is to make contraception widely known and regularly used to minimize induced abortions. The spontaneous ones will happen anyway.
Many hard-right types are against contraception because 1) young women shouldn’t enjoy sex without the fear of pregnancy and 2) the US is just way too sparsely populated. Pay no attention to all those traffic jams !
I would request a case of someone desiring to outlaw contraception. Your term “many” is certainly wrong.
I have noticed that everyone who says the world is overpopulated firmly believes the rule does not apply to themselves. I never heard of a suicide note reading: “I did my part to decrease the population.”
Chjna’s forced abortions have wrecked havoc on the nation, and certainly been terrible for it overall.
Are you down with 45% abortion rate for US blacks? Is 100% OK?
What exactly differentiates your humanity from that of a zygote?
There is still time for that suicide note, you’ll be doing the world a favor.
So I’m looking at this thread and thinking, WTF! Where are all the anti-abortion folks? If it weren’t for me and David B. Benson, the thread would almost be empty. Where’s Ralph Reed when you folks need him? Is he off doing gun rights? Is he defending Trump generally? Pretty sad for you right wing anti-abortioners if you think about it. Maybe somebody is sending you a message. Game over.
Maybe they are presently working on making a kid….
LOL
I think abortion should be legal, for those who’s lives are in danger and those who have been raped. All others are “Responsible for their actions”. Something Leftist despise with a passion.
Ron, my goodness but you are confused.
Ron,…
Benson has demolished the arguments put forward by many here.
” My goodness but you are confused” and the presumption of his own infallibility deal crushing blows to those who differ with him on the issues.
Hope that you’re holding up OK😉😄 under that powerful and devastating repartee that Benson uses so effectively.
Tom Nash, my shotgun only holds so many pellets.
DB Benson,…
Those pellets would never reach Walla Walla.
Plus I’ll be looking over my shoulder if you should come to town.😦😧 (😃😄)
David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after six weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Your shotgun is shooting blanks.
Hands up everyone who thinks David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after six weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. actually owns a shotgun.
👏👏👏👋👍👋👏👋👏👍
He doesn’t “owe” you anything and all of your comments that include such nonsense should be deleted.
anonymous – it your not your job to enable him. He has Diane to do that.
Nash says: “Hope that you’re holding up OK😉😄 under that powerful and devastating repartee that Benson uses so effectively.”
Nash, on the other hand, uses dopey emoticons to express himself “so effectively.”
Wow. A whole string of them. I rest my case:
https://jonathanturley.org/2018/07/08/catching-roe-republicans-face-the-peril-of-success-of-a-pro-life-majority/comment-page-1/#comment-1757009
Anonymous,..
– I wanted to let you know that I’m sorry😯😳😯if my use of emoticons annoy you.
Ypu should have said something sooner, so I’d use them more appropriately.😋😝😜😋😛😋.
I will adjust the amount that I use them, especially when I reply to you.
I’ll watch myself 😇😇so I can keep in check the overuse of emoticons, and hit a happy median; tailored to just the right amount of using them, depending on who I’m addressing.
I hope this makes it all better for you. Sincerely😏😕😒, Tom
They don’t “annoy” me, Nash. They’re just dopey, but hey: Have at it.
Thanks for your permission, anonymous. That makes me feel relieved 😎😆that I will no longer have to limit their use, especially when addressing you.
While both my confidence and pride are shattered 😯😩at your “dopey”comment, I’ll muddle through somehow.
Tom Nash – your self-restraint was both evident and admirable. 🙂
Paul C. Schulte,….
-Just trying to respond to constructive criticism from The Linker.
I was looking for a link within, or instead of, an actual comment from The Linker.
Those messages must have been exhausting to write, as they contained more of the author’s actual words than just posting someone else’s words.
The exchange reminded me of a guy I worked with…..great guy, great worker.
He misinterpreted something I said, and was indignant over what he perceived that I had said.
_ ( Even if I had said what he thouht I said, it was nothing to get excited about…..it was a comment about his” pride and joy” car).
After he left the lunchroom, one guy shook his head and said “Geez, most guys would get that upset if they thought you were insulting their wife!”.
He had mentioned for weeks that his car “was in the shop”…I thought he meant for repairs.
He actually was storing his 280 Z in a shop his Dad had on his property.
We’d been talking about cars, and the subject of his 280Z came up.
I said “you’ve had quite a bit of trouble with that car, haven’t haven’t you?
He snapped back “There’s nothing wrong with my car!!”.
He clarified that he was storing it “in the shop”.
His reaction was what prompted the comment “most guys wouldn’t get that upset if you insulted their wives!”.
Before we went back to our work areas, I asked everyone in the lunchroom to go over to Rick’s area to ask him “what’s wrong with his car?”, or say “Sorry you’ve been having so much trouble with your car”.
I also asked them to tell everyone else they talked to go over to Rick and ask the same question, or tell him, “Sorry you’ve had to have all of those repairs done on your car”.
I could see Rick from where I was working. Guys would come up to him, and I could see him shaking his head “no” vigorously, and looking more and more irritated.
After about 10 guys pulled this on him, he finally clicked and fugured out who was behind all of this.
He spun around and caught me watching him, with a big grin on my face.
He shook his finger at me like an “I’m gonna get you for that” gesture.
I think from then on we both started to jokenly trash-talk about each others’ cars.
D.B. Benson,…
Making that accusation does not make your case.
If you want to support your comment, challenge TD to Spastics/ DSS when he'”making things up”.
You have repeatedly made that “he’s making things up” comment as a reply to certain comments.
I’ve almost NEVER seen you provide support for your “making things up” accusation.
You seem to think that merely making that declaration is suffient.
Pace yourself, Anonymous Linker.
You are not used to relying on your own words to express a thought.
And it shows. I’m growing concerned😦😧😯 that the strain of extending yourself this way will be too much for you.
At least I know that you are still conserving energy by not reading and/ or understanding what other people write.
Out of consideration for that, I include emoticons for people like you with reading disabilities.
I’ll try to get on a device that will allow me to draw pictures and shiny objects for you.
For the time being, I’m sorry😟😩 that I only have the emoticans to assist you.
LOL. You boys have way too much time on your hands. Ever think about doing something useful?
So I’m looking at this thread and thinking, WTF! Where are all the anti-abortion folks?
So I’m also looking at this thread and thinking; WTF! Why is hollywood not responding to my response to him after he whined about the lack of participation by pro-life folks?
I don’t see such a response.
Olly,…
Before that, a few days ago, he claimed that his First Amendment rights were being abridged because his comments were not being posted.
Darren explained to him that there was a limit of 2 links per comments.
Every now and then a comment will not post, may disappear, etc. for a variety of reasons.
But I don’t remember anyone citing it as evidence that First Anendment rights were being violated.
This was followed by a flood of comments and links. I may or may not read links, because that involves a good deal of time.
Also, there are times when the links are flimsy, or counter to, the very point the commentator was trying to make.
That’s what I’ve called ” The Wild Goose Chase” links.
And the content of the links is very often not objective reporting by any measure.
Then comes the whining about me and others not reading his/her links.
I don’t think a serial, compulsive linker is entitled to essentially demand that his/ her links be read.
Then he/she posts an NPR link…..it was short, so I read it.
I also commented on the link in a reply to HolyWord.
Who in turn replies to me, referring to elements in my comment….the same comment that contained my reference to the NPR link I’d read.
So it’s certain that HolyWord read my comment mentioning the NPR link.
Then he/she complains that I did not read the NPR…..I respond that I did read it, and HolyWord calls me a liar.
I’m not going to review everything that’s very, let’s just say, some very “odd” behavior on the part of this apparently new “contributor”.
But I have given HolyWord credit for “saving time”….usually, it takes a while to see that pattern of “odd” activity.
(In view of the civility rule, I’m using the word “odd”).
Anyway, as a percentage of those who comment here, very few are that “odd”.
But by volume of posts/ verbiage, it can become more of a nuisance.
If there are 2-3 dedicated trolls among 100 who comment, it won’t necessarily be 2-3% of space taken up by them.
Often, it’s far higher.
@Tom Nash
True colors shining through… Wow.
Ooh, ouch. Must have run out of links, so now the her rapier-like wit is much more devastating.
I’ll recover, in time, from such an effective attack from Linker.
Why argue with idiots?
Bingo! +1
Hear, hear, YNOT.
A zygote is a one celled human being. If you disagree, please state exactly and specifically the sum total what differentiates your humanity from that of a zygote.
IMO the only defensible abortion is one in which one or both (mother and child) shall die. In the case of mothers who choose death so their baby can live, government should honor such “choice” with the highest formal honors, buildings named after them, images on currency, and maybe even statues (not sure how about my feelings Re. statues in general).
Roe is an abomination which caused about 60M American unborn deaths.
What exactly is your opinion of the 45% abortion rate for American blacks? Should the number be higher? Is 100% OK?
Remember when Roe supporters promised all babies would be wanted?
Nope, got your numbers wrong. Those damned white folks keep dominating abortion numbers. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortions-by-race/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
Nope, you are wrong, these numbers are not per capita. Of course their are more white abortions, their are many, many more white people.
https://concernedwomen.org/abortion-demographics-who-has-an-abortion/
“Not every state reports abortion by ethnicity, but those that do reveal that abortions to blacks and Hispanic women account for 55.4% of the 405,795 abortions reported by race. This number is disproportionate considering the fact that black and Hispanic women only comprise roughly 29% of the total U.S. population.”
Your source is biased and inaccurate. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/concerned-women-america/
Did you err by accident or are you intentionally dumb? Do you know the difference between rate and total? Another public school product? Pathetic.
From the National Center for Health Statistics:
“Among the 30 areas that reported cross-classified race/ethnicity data for 2014, non-Hispanic white women and non-Hispanic black women accounted for the largest percentages of all abortions (38.0% and 36.0%, respectively), and Hispanic women and non-Hispanic women in the other race category accounted for smaller percentages (18.3% and 7.7%, respectively) (Table 12). Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rate (7.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratio (121 abortions per 1,000 live births) and non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rate (26.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratio (391 abortions per 1,000 live births). Data for 2014 are also reported separately by race and by ethnicity (Tables 13 and 14).”
Joseph Jones — A zygote, ordinarily, has a potential of growing into a viable human being. A high proportion fail to do so, terminating in a spontaneous abortion.
I opine you need to study some developmental biology before you further expose your ignorance.
I asked you to post exactly what differentiates your humanity from a zygote. Some humans live to be 105, in some cases an abortionist murders them in the womb. If your logic is that life span equals humanity, what is the life span at which one “becomes” human? The reason the courts have no firm answer is because the answer confirms the USA has murdered 60M unborn human beings since Roe. A zygote is a one celled human being.
How wonderful life would be if there were at least 60 million more of us crawling about, using up natural resources and clogging the highways.
You share at least one thing in common with every single proponent of overpopulation: you can do sum total one thing to actually decrease the population, which is the last thing you’d ever do. IOW yours is the most pure hypocrisy extant: you promote one thing you’d never actually do, which is to decrease the population.
I shall not necessarily promote your committing suicide, but between that and your promoting and justifying the murder of 60M unborn innocents and counting, I favor the former over the latter.
I desire all those not yet conceived to flourish. Between the right of those not yet conceived (future zygotes) to flourish and your right to promote their unwanted and untimely innocent death, I favor the former (by infinite margin) over the latter.
Here’s a thought. Just pay for women to go to states that support abortion rights. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/07/could-liberals-raise-a-billion-dollars-a-year-to-fund-abortions/
It’s an awkward fix, but it could work.
My mom told me that back before abortion was legal, that women went to Mexico for the procedure. Sometimes mothers took their teen daughters down there for the same reason.
My mother went to Cuba for an abortion.
No, because those who are against abortions would clamor to eliminate those rights throughout the USA. (and maybe Canada, Mexico, and anywhere else)
From CDC statistics, approximately one pregnancy in six ends in a spontaneous abortion, sometimes called a stillbirth but often just a menstruation after one or two missed periods.
As constitutionally poor the Roe v. Wade decision was, it would be a mistake to overturn the law.
Not because it is the right thing to do, but because I’m old enough to remember the local NYC news reporting on the many back alley abortions and young women dying on a regular basis.
As much as I abhor the carefree attitude of aborting when there are so many couples begging to adopt, I personally prefer to keep the practice legal to avoid the past.
People are going to do what they want, whether its legal or not. Prohibition and the war on illegal drugs have failed miserably, so why add many more young lives to the bottom line?
I think a lot has changed since those days (and NY was one of the first to allow abortions). Contraception (even male), the morning after pill, Planned Parenthood, etc. No one is going to have to have a “back alley abortion.”
You bring up a great point…..with all the information and contraception available, how does anyone have an unwanted pregnancy?
“The more things change, the more they stay the same.” I didn’t originate that statement, but truer words never written.
Young women still get drunk at frat parties, I suppose.
If the unborn who’ve been beheaded and limbs torn off could share their opinion, they’d likely share that the fact that some women will still chose an illegal abortion is a weak argument justifying 60M unborn murders since Roe.
It isn’t about an argument. It’s about reality. You can’t legislate common sense.
Else JJ could not publish his BS.
Abortion is murder.
You don’t like the law; what’s new?
I want to abort my neighbor.
I don’t like the guy.
Can America legislate “neighbor murder”
just as it “legislated” “baby murder?”
Let’s check the Ten Commandments.
Nope. It says, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
Seems purdy simple to me.
Adoption. That’s the ticket.
Next case?
George, you have of course adopted as many children as you can possibly afford to raise.
I have.
Ad hominen.
Nice.
Out of ammunition, are you?
You’re a genius!
George, great post! One mistake. “You shall not kill” is a mistranslation. It should read “You shall not murder”. That is a common mistake based on the wrong word being used.
Thanks.
SamFox
The same list that says ‘You shall not murder’, which is #6, has an interesting item under it as item #7: ‘You shall not commit adultery’.
The free love/sex movement & the so called Playboy Lifestyle is the result of ignoring #7 & has led us back to #6.
There is a sulpha drug that is 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. Sulphadenial works every time.
The fruit of the free sex tree is a lot of sexually transmitted disease & death. Not much positive there.
A decent word study of the original wording in Hebrew shows that ALL forms of sex outside the union of a man & woman is, to say the least, NOT healthy. Ballyhoo all you want. The truth of what I say has been found in garbage bins, AIDS, herpes….oh, yes, now the garbage bins are not as full of dead children as they once were. Now there is a market for the dead babies.
“STDs are sexually transmitted diseases. This means they are most often — but not exclusively — spread by sexual intercourse. HIV, chlamydia, genital herpes, genital warts, gonorrhea, some forms of hepatitis, syphilis, and trichomoniasis…” from WebMD.com
“Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being seen across the country. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal cancer.” From the CDC website.
Holler & shout all ya want. Elohim, Nature’s God, really does know what He is talking about. The 10 Commandments are not meant to ‘keep people from having fun’ but are guardrails to protect us from our lower impulses.
I am not innocent & judging. I once was a fornicator. I loved the gals as often as I could. That is covered in #7. Yup. I ignored #7 & did ‘MY thing’. I didn’t get any STDs, but I sure could have. My ‘thing’ was in the late 60’s & mid 70’s, not very long before the wave of STDs poured through the country & world. I was kind of fortunate I guess. I left that lifestyle a few decades back & am glad I did.
You can choose to play Sexual Roulette if ya want. But I won’t take the chance anymore. You make your own choice, but if ya get ‘caught’ in the trap…it’s on you.
SamFox
Haha. Finally we get the truth. Everybody else is knocking boots but you, so instead of upping your game, you’ve decided to rain on the parade. Pro tip: buy a magazine.
This is to “what’s this I hear about sex robots?” Sammie
Checking CDC statistics, the abortion rate has continued to fall since the 1980s.
That is a problem. Perhaps the GOP can now focus on declaring birth control unconstitutional.
A great many GOPers already feel that way. I suspect it is because they fear that some women might actually enjoy sex, just for the fun of it. After all, when a devout GOP couple goes to bed, they always ask, in a very sober way, “would you like to make a baby tonight?”
Professor Turley, what are your thoughts on possibly finding a right to life in the Constitution (i.e., the one that Joshua Craddock discussed in his Harvard Law Review note)? Conceivably, the court could reverse Roe and establish that right in the same decision. Or would that be too big of a step?
A right to life? Belonging to whom? It’s been established that corporations are people. It’s been established that trees don’t have standing. But you want to establish that embryos have a right to life? You really want to go there? How could the embroyos sue to establish their rights? What if there’s a miscarriage? Is the suit dismissed?
Yo, Hollywood. Sounds like you been there too long.;-)
Right to life?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” From ushistory.org
Unless you can prove a baby growing in the womb is not a human being, a developing part of mankind, that child in his or her own existence has the right to life. And later on as they grow up, the rest of the rights we should all enjoy.
“Jefferson’s argument is not that the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness originate in government, but that these rights have a divine origin. Jefferson argued that the job of all governments was to “secure” rights that God had already granted. In other words, the rights to life and liberty do not come into being with the force of government fiat; life and liberty are pre-political rights already granted by God. Today, we have lost that concept. Almost a quarter-millennia later, these rights are no longer considered self-evident, and neither is a Creator. Once God and the natural law are disassociated from rights—once the idea of justice and goodness are separated from rights—we are left with a political environment in which anything could be considered a right, or nothing could be considered a right.” From ncregister.com/blog
That last sentence seems to be where the Dem ‘progressive’ left wants to take the USA.
SamFox
How could the embroyos sue to establish their rights?
WTF!? Good to know you aren’t interested in securing rights unless the victim had developed the capacity to sue for it. Do you really want to go there?
Hollywood, Craddock’s note argues that embroyos are legal persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment; therefore, they are entitled to constitutional protections. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2970761
In answer to your question on how embroyos could sue to establish their rights, we allow dead people to sue via their estates for the execution of their final wishes. The legal rights of an embroyo would rest first in the parents as against all parties, and, in a limited sense, in the state against the parents to protect the embroyo’s right to life from a desire to abort. Similar to the estate concept, the unborn person’s rights would be actionable through a third party. Notably, states already do this with 20 week abortion bans.
I think you’d have a better shot establishing that a pregnant woman has a liberty interest in pursuing her life without having to undergo childbirth if she does not wish to.
Hollywood, yup. Kill the child for convenience. That doesn’t work well for the new human & most often not for the Mom. Killing the new child is most often just the beginning of sorrows.
Ever look up the problems that most women have post abortion? Many are rendered incapable of ever having children, some die & other physical problems are possible. Then there are the psychological issues most of them have to cope with.
All this suffering & death. Just so a few people, say those at Planned Parenthood, can get rich.
Just a thought.
SamFox
SamFox, you are seriously misinformed.
DBB, Oh? How so? I did the research. Want another long post? I’ll be glad to give it to you.
You rebuttal kinda lacks…what is it? Pizzaz? Oh. It’s information that is lacking. 😉
SamFox
DBB, this is where I am coming from. I’ll save the quotes to shorten this, just give the links.
http://wrtl.org/abortion/problems-after-abortion/
http://afterabortion.org/1999/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-physical-complications-related-to-abortion/
There ya go. A shorter post.
SamFox
SamFox, I will take my statistics from reliable organizations which are not prejudiced. Would that you would do the same.
I remind you that many abortions are spontaneous and the women continue to have a normal life thereafter, including having children.
I recommend that you actually learn the facts and give up your ignorant prejudice.
When abortion became legal, our country started down the toilet. This is a human rights issue that the liberals do not wish to address as such. An unborn infant is a separate human being from the mother – I don’t care how many excuses people make. This is not about a woman’s right to control her own body. The control should have happened before the pregnancy – once a life has been created, the choice is no longer hers. Every single woman that I have met in my life and, tragically, there have been many, who have aborted their babies (often more than one) always…always try to explain it away. Always look for expiation of that act they know in their hearts is wrong.
When it comes to “separate” you are wrong on the biology.
No, he isn’t. The baby has their very own DNA which is distinctly different than the mother. The baby has its own blood type which is separate from the mothers.
Shannon — Yes, the DNA is distinct. Possibly the blood type is, but not for sure.
Nonetheless, look up the definition of separate in the Oxford English Dictionary and the Cambridge Dictionary. Then study the developmental biology which you seem to have forgotten since your middle school biology class.
DDB. the child IS a separate human entity from the Mom. Otherwise birth would be an amputation. Cutting the umbilical cord is not the same as removing a lung or arm.
SamFox
DDB, were you thinking that a new baby in a new Mom is like a Siamese twin? Even you know better than that. ;-D
SamFox
Ever watched the umbilical cord being cut? I have.
DB, What is the umbilical cord attached to? The mother? Nope…it’s attached to the placenta.
Then study the developmental biology which you seem to have forgotten since your middle school biology class.
How many cells qualify for the security of life? One? 37 Trillion? What age qualifies for the security of life? 1 second after fertilization? 115 years post-birth? Perhaps life is not worth securing unless the life is viable. When is a life not viable? More importantly, should we secure life only when it is viable? Are you opposed to the availability of life support systems for humans that need it to survive? What’s the medical difference between the life support system provided by the mother of her unborn child and the life support system provided to a post-birth individual?
I was privileged to use invitro. My daughter was conceived in a laboratory using my egg and my spouse’s sperm. She was placed inside my uterus when she was 8 cells. She was separate from my body. I don’t need to research “separate” as I’ve had the unique experience to witness it with my own eyes. Perhaps an Anatomy and Physiology class would be beneficial to you.
“When abortion became legal, our country started down the toilet. [Other countries have had abortion. Did rights go down the W.C.? Le Toilette? Where did those rights go?] This is a human rights issue that the liberals do not wish to address as such. [Actually, people want to talk about the mother’s rights all the time. Ocasionally they talk about the father’s rights. It’s hard to get a grasp on an embryo’s rights.] An unborn infant is a separate human being from the mother – I don’t care how many excuses people make. [At what point? The gleem in someone’s eye? Intercourse? Conception? 30, 60, 90, 120 days down the line? And your science says?] This is not about a woman’s right to control her own body. [Really? Have you asked the women?] The control should have happened before the pregnancy – once a life has been created, the choice is no longer hers. [Oh, so it’s a sin since someone did not use control? What about rape? Incest? What about a finding that the child will be born seriously handicapped?]
Every single woman that I have met in my life and, tragically, there have been many [You stud!], who have aborted their babies (often more than one) always…always try to explain it away. [Oh, you have asked some women who may have been afraid to confront you on the issue. I can only imagine those deep conversations you have with the women you meet. What a turn on!] Always look for expiation of that act they know in their hearts is wrong. [So, they know it is wrong because you know it’s wrong. Therefore, it’s wrong!]
“once a life has been created, the choice is no longer hers. ” That’s right, every young woman is just a caretaker for her uterus.
Unfortunately for you, the era when women were the chattel property of their nearest male relative is over. Women are now in control their own lives. With that control, comes the decision over whether to use birth control–or not. Such control has nothing to do with the reprehensible practice of you and your ilk in hiding behind the make believe bodies of imaginary “children” merely because women are no longer property and you types understandably can’t get a date. Your remedy, should you choose to remain such a social pariah, is not a misguided attempt to re-subjugate women; rather, it’s to buy a magazine. So sorry for your loss.
this is to “I wonder If I can finance one of these sex robots” pennie
Marky Mark Mark – this rant is word salad. You are missing enough words that it does not make sense.
“If Roe lives, even in a greatly reduced form, the right will continue to reside in the Supreme Court. If it is overturned, momentum will likely approach madness as an estimated 70 percent of the country move to recreate the right in their states.”
What? Republicans supporting states’ rights?
🙂
With every “right” there is an equal “responsibility.” I haven’t heard one pro-choice woman speak of her responsibility…why is that?
Equal? Where’s the equation? The math? Could it possibly be more responsible to abort than to carry to term in some cases?
Not in my opinion…the responsibility SHOULD take place prior to conception. Be proactive vice reactive.
Because you say so? Well, I think you should take out the trash and then wash my car.
this is to “and don’t leave any water spots” shannon
Marky Mark Mark – so, you are trying to make Shannon your chattel. Shame on you.
Shannon, I certainly have and on more than one occasion.